What Do You Refuse to Accept as Fact?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 15 NEXT
 

Loaeon:
I refuse to believe that dog's can look up.
P.S someone will hopefully get the reference.

Big Al says a lot of things, you shouldn't believe them all.

OP: I refuse to believe that popular music is popular, subsequently leading to how I refuse to believe that so many people on this planet could be below 100 IQ.

Luna:

AngelBlackChaos:

Luna:
I refuse to believe women are more intelligent, (The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills) than men.

It doesn't matter what any IQ survey says. I just don't see it. If women score higher then all that tells me is that a woman designed the questions.

^Just remember that most posts in this thread aren't 100% justified opinions and I willingly admit that mine is quite possibly one of them.

Most IQ tests are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males.Because environmental factors affect brain activity and behavior, where differences are found, it can be difficult for researchers to assess whether or not the differences are innate. Areas where differences have been found include verbal and mathematical ability.

Well-known modern IQ tests include Raven's Progressive Matrices(Man), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale(Man), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children(Man), Stanford-Binet(Men), Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities(man and woman), and Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (Man and Woman).

Most IQ tests are made so that sex has nothing to do with the intelligence quotient. Overall, there are no substantial differences in scores, though depending on the test, small differences in mathmatics and verbal skills may be seen.

....Have you ever taken an IQ test? Or read anything about them before judging them to be "In favor of women"? The fact is, sex has nothing to do with intelligence.

Clearly, there are female, AND male idiots.

If sex has nothing to do with intelligence then females wouldn't generally score higher.

It does have nothing to do with intelligence. Not every IQ test is completely accepted as the standard for all. Not only that, but just because a group of say, 100 people, 50 women and 50 men, tend to score differently, doesn't always count toward the populous. Its too small of a sample. Let alone if it was uneven in total, giving a larger sample to women more then men, or men more then women. I don't believe that you could consider it a total proof or not, sheerly because the larger a sample has against the other sex, more more likely they would get to have more intelligent people within that pool, giving an unfair advantage in the calculations. In truth, IQ tests are meant to determine INDIVIDUAL intelligence. Its not meant to cause a sex war....nor should it be.

Why must there be a better sex? Shouldn't you focus on individuals.Honestly, why should anyone care if women or men are more intelligent overall (which is highly unlikely, considering the varied amounts of intelligence due to education, location, etc.) I would say where someone is born and what sort of educational system they are raised in has more bearing on their intelligence than their sex.

Highlander 2.

AngelBlackChaos:

Luna:

AngelBlackChaos:

Most IQ tests are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males.Because environmental factors affect brain activity and behavior, where differences are found, it can be difficult for researchers to assess whether or not the differences are innate. Areas where differences have been found include verbal and mathematical ability.

Well-known modern IQ tests include Raven's Progressive Matrices(Man), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale(Man), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children(Man), Stanford-Binet(Men), Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities(man and woman), and Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (Man and Woman).

Most IQ tests are made so that sex has nothing to do with the intelligence quotient. Overall, there are no substantial differences in scores, though depending on the test, small differences in mathmatics and verbal skills may be seen.

....Have you ever taken an IQ test? Or read anything about them before judging them to be "In favor of women"? The fact is, sex has nothing to do with intelligence.

Clearly, there are female, AND male idiots.

If sex has nothing to do with intelligence then females wouldn't generally score higher.

It does have nothing to do with intelligence. Not every IQ test is completely accepted as the standard for all. Not only that, but just because a group of say, 100 people, 50 women and 50 men, tend to score differently, doesn't always count toward the populous. Its too small of a sample. Let alone if it was uneven in total, giving a larger sample to women more then men, or men more then women. I don't believe that you could consider it a total proof or not, sheerly because the larger a sample has against the other sex, more more likely they would get to have more intelligent people within that pool, giving an unfair advantage in the calculations. In truth, IQ tests are meant to determine INDIVIDUAL intelligence. Its not meant to cause a sex war....nor should it be.

Why must there be a better sex? Shouldn't you focus on individuals.Honestly, why should anyone care if women or men are more intelligent overall (which is highly unlikely, considering the varied amounts of intelligence due to education, location, etc.) I would say where someone is born and what sort of educational system they are raised in has more bearing on their intelligence than their sex.

I appreciate the thought out response. You're right, I shouldn't care. To be fair its not something I think about all day, rather it popped into my head after I saw something about it.

NuclearShadow:
I don't believe in a world order conspiracies. People generally just fall into conflict and thus I believe it would be impossible in our current stage for our species to have a handful of people rule the entire world. There simply would be too many inner conflicts and it would fall apart if it could ever even reach that point to begin with. Secret societies may exist but only to the extend of aiding the success of their members and not ruling the world.

Well, the problem here is that the conspirators themselves have written books confessing that they are members of a secret cabal, and detailing their plans for a socialist one world government.

Aside from that little detail, yeah, the Illuminati/New World Order thing is totally BS.

Lizardon:
Well the main reason they redefined what a planet is ...

What do you mean, "redefined"? They had never "defined" it in the first place until they came up with the definition that we have now.

Catie Caraco:
The more common believe in psychology and child development these days is the Tabula Rasa theory, or the blank slate theory.

Calling it a "theory" is rather generous considering all of the evidence against it.

lacktheknack:
A better question is "What were they thinking when they labeled it a planet in the first place?"

Maybe 'cuz it was about the size of Mercury, but unlike Mercury, it had moons and sometimes an atmosphere? That sounds pretty goddamn planet-like to me.

solid_snake:
I refuse to believe in LCHF (that only eating fat and no carbonhydrates is healthy and you will lose weight).

But it's been proven to work :\

waj9876:
I refuse to believe that the United States government is keeping all things alien in Area 51.

Clearly they would move all the spaceships and alien corpses somewhere else after it became number 1 on crazy people's "GOVERNMENT IS KEEPIN' THE GOSH DARN ALIENS HERE!" list.

Uh, they moved all that shit to a missile complex in Colorado years ago.

Grey Carter:
Despite being an atheist, I've never bought into the idea that evolution was entirely responsible for the human body. I don't have any theories on the matter, but it just seems a bit too complex to be the result of random mutations.

YO DAWG HAVE YOU SEEN PROMETHEUS

A Satanic Panda:
Besides, we're 12 and a half years into a new century, and there's no world war in sight!

Wrong. We've been talking a lot lately about fucking up Iran's shit, and the Chinese recently said that if we do, they'll come to Iran's aid and retaliate against us.

omega 616:
No, I wasn't writing the full thing I just wrote enough to make readers aware of what I was talking about.

Weather I put 1 9 or a million people would still understand what I was trying to convey, which is what my intent was ... not to be mathematically accurate.

Restating my point that I am terrible at maths is another example of adding words that aren't needed. Like calling a fat kid fat ... he knows it, calling him fat is unnecessary.

Now I'm going to explain why your post is wrong and stupid.

When you say "0.9", that means "0.90000...", not "0.999999..."

0.9 = 0.9, whereas 0.9999999... = 1

cotss2012:

Lizardon:
Well the main reason they redefined what a planet is ...

What do you mean, "redefined"? They had never "defined" it in the first place until they came up with the definition that we have now.

[/quote]
Are you saying that before 2006 we never had a definition for the word planet?

Planet, like many words, have had it's meaning change as our understanding has changed. The Greeks used planet to refer to anything that moved across the sky (including the sun and moon). Later in the 19th century is was revised to anything that orbits the sun. It was again changed in the 20th century to a significantly large object that orbits the sun, so bodies like Ceres between Mars and Jupiter were no longer counted as planets.

And now we define a planet as:
A celestial body that is (a) in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

This may be the first formally agreed upon definition of planet, but the word has had various meanings and definitions beforehand.

Luna:

TheHmm:

Luna:
I refuse to believe women are more intelligent, (The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills) than men.

It doesn't matter what any IQ survey says. I just don't see it. If women score higher then all that tells me is that a woman designed the questions.

^Just remember that most posts in this thread aren't 100% justified opinions and I willingly admit that mine is quite possibly one of them.

In sweden we have a test that doubles as grades for University, if you get a good score on it then you can compete with straight-A students.

Its made up of Reading, Math, understanding and higher level thinking. (i scored top 10%)

Men consistently score higher at it than women.

So they are looking to redesign it (maybe) because there is obviously(bullshit) something wrong with the test. (and 50000+ take it twice a year)

Its called "Högskoleprovet"

Well there we go.

Even though I think men *might* be smarter than women, (I can't be sure, besides I'm a guy so I think about things in a certain way that puts men's ways of thinking in a better light), I wouldn't ever be smug about it, which is more than I can say about many of the encounters I've had when women have said that they are smarter than men.

Sorry to hear about the Government intervention to this test. God I hate forced equality.

Society and most individuals place less pressure on women to be intelligent, successful or ambitious. Even to this day, there is still the idea that women can 'fall back' on finding a man to take care of them. Which is nonsensical, of course, but as a guy, I can't deny I was probably more encouraged and pressured than a girl would be.

There's no hard evidence whatsoever that there's a meaningful, consistent intelligence difference between genders on a biological level. Harmones only effect so much.

And besides: tests are made by people, and usually men. Because of marketing and media demographics, as well as social 'norms', the type of knowledge and media the genders are exposed to is different. The tests will always be biased as a result from this. Thus, the different test results. Women are more often exposed to the arts and music, and men have better math skills because that's what we're told is normal. It's all subconscious, but my genitals are not linked to my love of science. I'm actually far more artistically inclined and hate math, which is not exactly rare, but it's not the norm.

Given the men and women I've interacted with in my life, and who my smartest friends are, I refused to believe that either gender is just naturally smarter overall.

Time travel, definitely that. Not real, surely. However according to scientists time travel into the future is possible, at least theoretically.

omega 616:
snip

You've said you're bad at maths and your posts are a bit all over the place so I'll post the simplest way of understanding it. (Don't know if you get it not but what the hell).

1/3 = 0.33333333333333 repeating

1/3 x 3 = 1/1 = 1

and thus:

0.3333333 (repeating) x 3 = 0.999999 (repeating) = 1

I refuse to believe the Copenhagen interpretation of Schroedinger's Cat: That being unobserved the cat is both alive and dead.

As a significant object the cat observes itself people! How is that so hard to understand? Now stop referencing it incorrectly in nerdy pop-culture shows as if it was an absolute explanation of the phenomenon. I'm looking at you Big Bang Theory.

Loaeon:
I refuse to believe that dog's can look up.
P.S someone will hopefully get the reference.

other people probably got it by now but Shaun Of The Dead,

something I can't accept as fact is that George Lucas's ham-handling of the prequels was accidental, I firmly beleive that he just got so sick of Star Wars he didn't want anyone to like it anymore so that he could go on and make a sequel to Howard the Duck or something without being hounded about Star Wars,

also I cannot accept that Jack Gleeson is a very nice person as is alledged, I look at him and all I see is Joffrey Beratheon, and want to punch him in the face no matter how nice he supposedly is off-screen, every time I hear the rumor that he's "actually really nice" I go "SHUT UP I WANT TO HATE HIM!"

lacktheknack:
I simply refuse to believe that "My Immortal" is not a troll fic. NO ONE misspells "Azkaban" as "Azerbaijan". NO ONE.

Whoa, wait, that's what got you? Not "Cornelio Fuck!" or "Enoby Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way" or completely flip-flopping everybody out of character and slapping them all in Slytherin, or making Tom Riddle and Voldemort two different people, or "Morty Mcfli!" and his "tim machine"? Or "Volxemort and da Death Deelers" as well as, and I'm just Copy-pasting this now:
"Voldemont, Volsemort, Volcemort, Voldemprt, Vlodemort, Volzemort, Volxemort, Voldremort, Voldimort, Voldemint, Volfemort, Voldimint, The Bark Lord, Da Barke Lord, The Dork Lord, Darth Valer, Tom Bombodil, Tom Anderson, Satan, Stan"

However, it did give us this wonderful dramatic reading:

Matthew94:

omega 616:
snip

You've said you're bad at maths and your posts are a bit all over the place so I'll post the simplest way of understanding it. (Don't know if you get it not but what the hell).

1/3 = 0.33333333333333 repeating

1/3 x 3 = 1/1 = 1

and thus:

0.3333333 (repeating) x 3 = 0.999999 (repeating) = 1

I read "You've said you're bad at maths and your posts are a bit all over the place so I'll post the simplest way of understanding it" then came to the same conclusion I usually come to when I ask people to follow instructions ... They never listen, this has happened 8 or 9 times so far (Don't quote 'cos I wont read it and I get 10 quotes. Read the OP before posting and end up with pages full of off topic posts etc)

I have said in all my posts in this thread, 0.9 doesn't = 1 ... the same as 0.8 doesn't, recurring or not.

Do I care if I wrong, not a jot. Ignorance is bliss, so let me live in bliss. If you think I am just sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "LALALA" then so be it.

Like I said, I am crap at basic maths ... what makes you think I can even start to try to comprehend math "tricks" or whatever?

Sorry if this came across aggressively, it's half 3 I gotta get up early but due to the heat I can't sleep ...

AnarchistFish:

mathsisfun:
i refuse to believe in plate tectonics, because physics doesn't work like that.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Plate tectonics haven't been completely explained yet, but the evidence is everywhere.

Ryan Brimfield:
I refuse to believe that football or baseball are entertaining sports.

We're talking about yanqui football here right? Cos otherwise we're gonna have some issues.

OT: Refuse to accept that Portal is the best game of the past 7 years.

American football I find very boring even as an american.

octafish:
I refuse to believe any conspiracy theory that relies on government competence and the keeping of secrets over a long period by anyone. Clearly conspiracy theorists have never met elected officials or public servants, or indeed human beings.

Oh dear God, yes.

+1 for this from me, and probably another +X by proxy (where X = the number of people who have ever been employed as public servants, possibly excluding the intelligence community whose job it is to investigate such possibilities).

Mr.Tea:

lacktheknack:

Ledan:
I'm also a bit iffy about some high level physics stuff. That it's impossible to go faster than light and that you can slow down time (relatively). Mostly because we've said that a lot of things are impossible that we are doing today, and time is a human concept.

Here's an example of why even approaching the speed of light is incredibly risky and implausible.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

That wouldn't happen in a vacuum/space. (Space, A.K.A: the only place where we'd ever have any use for moving at or over the speed of light)

The only reason why that reaction occurs is the friction of the ball going through our atmosphere.

Actually, there are particles in space. Nebulae, tiny asteroids, "escaped" atmosphere particles, remnants of great explosions... The only part of space that's truly particle free is where it's at Absolute Zero. Not much of space is.

And of course, if you hit a particle cloud in space...

Plus, hitting a cluster of any kind of atom while in a spaceship built out of metal? All you need is one fusion to utterly ruin your day. And, if my understanding of basic nuclear physics is correct, a metallic atom turning into plasma is significantly more horrifying than a nitrogen/oxygen/other atmospheric atom.

I don't believe that um, giraffes, exist.

Mr.Tea:

lacktheknack:

Ledan:
I'm also a bit iffy about some high level physics stuff. That it's impossible to go faster than light and that you can slow down time (relatively). Mostly because we've said that a lot of things are impossible that we are doing today, and time is a human concept.

Here's an example of why even approaching the speed of light is incredibly risky and implausible.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

That wouldn't happen in a vacuum/space. (Space, A.K.A: the only place where we'd ever have any use for moving at or over the speed of light)

The only reason why that reaction occurs is the friction of the ball going through our atmosphere.

The issue with space travel is that space is rarely truly 'empty.' Sure, it might be 100 or 1000 miles before you collide with another particle, but you WILL collide with a particle at some point, and it could be devastating.

Not to mention, the Doppler Effect means that the light emitted from stars is hitting you as gamma rays (and stronger), which will punch clean through most shielding. People inside of a spaceship would be decimated by these gamma/cosmic rays.

It sucks to read about, but as far as I know we don't have a solution for this yet.

EDIT: FREAKING FOUND IT: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610030.pdf

"RADIATION HAZARD OF RELATIVISTIC INTERSTELLAR FLIGHT"

(Rest has been spoilered because it's no longer relevant)

Kilroy17:
Time travel, definitely that. Not real, surely. However according to scientists time travel into the future is possible, at least theoretically.

Lucky for you, time travel is logically impossible, as it entails a paradox, so it doesn't matter what scientists think is scientifically possible - so your refusal to accept it is well-founded.

I refuse to accept the idea that all that I am is reducible to mechanistic material processes.

Sadly someone already refused to believe it isn't butter v_v

I refuse to accept that Olivia Munn continues to get work. What in the hell is her appeal? Not funny, intelligent, interesting, talented, or attractive, and she is best known for dragging down Attack of the Show and making people change the channel when watching The Daily Show...so seriously it blows my mind.

Those was sadly the only 2 things I could think of that weren't wholly offensive to most people.

chadachada123:

The issue with space travel is that space is rarely truly 'empty.' Sure, it might be 100 or 1000 miles before you collide with another particle, but you WILL collide with a particle at some point, and it could be devastating.

Not to mention, the Doppler Effect means that the light emitted from stars is hitting you as gamma rays (and stronger), which will punch clean through most shielding. People inside of a spaceship would be decimated by these gamma/cosmic rays.

It sucks to read about, but as far as I know we don't have a solution for this yet.

EDIT: FREAKING FOUND IT: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610030.pdf

"RADIATION HAZARD OF RELATIVISTIC INTERSTELLAR FLIGHT"

(Rest has been spoilered because it's no longer relevant)

lacktheknack:

Actually, there are particles in space. Nebulae, tiny asteroids, "escaped" atmosphere particles, remnants of great explosions... The only part of space that's truly particle free is where it's at Absolute Zero. Not much of space is.

And of course, if you hit a particle cloud in space...

Plus, hitting a cluster of any kind of atom while in a spaceship built out of metal? All you need is one fusion to utterly ruin your day. And, if my understanding of basic nuclear physics is correct, a metallic atom turning into plasma is significantly more horrifying than a nitrogen/oxygen/other atmospheric atom.

Ouch.

Fascinating stuff.

I done been schooled yo.

I wasn't pretending to know high-level physics; I merely reacted to what I saw as a discrepancy between the what-if-xkcd and space travel. Apologies.

Here's to hoping the next hundred-odd years see the same rate of scientific advancement as the last, and then some.

Grey Carter:
Despite being an atheist, I've never bought into the idea that evolution was entirely responsible for the human body. I don't have any theories on the matter, but it just seems a bit too complex to be the result of random mutations.

You too?!

We have a really serious communication problem if so many people, including those who are clearly intelligent, still think evolution is about random mutations. Wonder what we're doing wrong.

That the government has our well being at heart.

GTwander:
I refuse to accept that all of you aren't just a figment of my imagination.

platinawolf:
I refuse to believe that we have proof of that we arn't just a dream/computersimulation, as we don't have any proof whatsoever that our reality is "real" that isn't based on other evidence that is based on a set of rules we have created to understand the world we live in.

Sometimes I think that to because I feel that no one would be that stupid to do that but than I go to sleep and wake up and I am all confused again.

Lizardon:

mathsisfun:
i refuse to believe in plate tectonics, because physics doesn't work like that.
i refuse to believe light is both a particle and a wave, i believe it to be a particle that can vary in size, to create the properties of a wave.
i refuse to believe humanity will ever end.

Not to be rude, but at how much of a physics education have you had? Just in high school or did you do any in college or university?

I could accept that you just don't believe it, but I would be surprised and suspect that it maybe wasn't explained properly or you didn't understand the explanation.

So what part of physics says plate tectonics cannot work?

Wikipedia:

The outer layers of the Earth are divided into lithosphere and asthenosphere. This is based on differences in mechanical properties and in the method for the transfer of heat. Mechanically, the lithosphere is cooler and more rigid, while the asthenosphere is hotter and flows more easily. In terms of heat transfer, the lithosphere loses heat by conduction whereas the asthenosphere also transfers heat by convection and has a nearly adiabatic temperature gradient.

...

The key principle of plate tectonics is that the lithosphere exists as separate and distinct tectonic plates, which ride on the fluid-like (visco-elastic solid) asthenosphere.

That seems to abide by all physical laws that I am aware of.

should probably have explained that better. i understand how plate tectonics works in theory, but i cant understand a very heavy and massive object like a plate, moving very slowly against great resistance, and then releasing all built up tension at once.
people have a built in understanding of physics, at least subconsciously (it allows us to walk without having to think about it), and most of the time its pretty accurate, but i guess mine just doesn't believe physics works like that.

mathsisfun:
should probably have explained that better. i understand how plate tectonics works in theory, but i cant understand a very heavy and massive object like a plate, moving very slowly against great resistance, and then releasing all built up tension at once.
people have a built in understanding of physics, at least subconsciously (it allows us to walk without having to think about it), and most of the time its pretty accurate, but i guess mine just doesn't believe physics works like that.

Have you ever snapped a plastic ruler?

Aprilgold:
*Snip*

How can you create a base for something you have never encountered before...
*Points at random video game character*
We have never met a video game character but we still create them all the time. Besides, we might be the emulation of the host(creator) species or one of its descendants. Or a simple science experiment that emulates a "universe" with a set of laws.

Thats all assuming A: its done in realtime and B: That all actions are actually emulated and not just implied. Once again, its simply a matter of input/output. The internal processes of an "avatar" would only need to be emulated when actually monitored, all other times you can go with more basic emulations. So instead of emulating the body with everything inside, you just emulate the senses and how it looks on the outside. All you need to do is match input and output. An example of doing this would be rewriting 1+2+3+4 to 5+5 or 10. Its the same number, just different ways of writing it. 1+2+3+4 obviously requires more power to calculate than 5+5 and 10 requires almost no power to read out.

Our world can be divided into several tiers with various things that needs to be "emulated".
The lowest tier would be the personal plane, one person and its thoughts. To emulate this we need to emulate all the input to the brain and then use the output to modify the input. Input being: Sight, Smell, Touch, Taste, Hearing. All of these inputs can be quantifiable. Creating a world (think Skyrim or similar) that's good enough to fool the senses wouldn't be an issue either as the brain at an early age "learns" what the world is and creates its own mental version of how the world looks based on the inputs. In other words, whatever a person grows up with is "normal".

As for the computing requirements? To do it in real-time with today's technology would be very costly. Mostly as we don't understand exactly how the human brain works. But if someone designed the human brain with the express purpose of seeing how an individual adapts to stimuli, then the requirements would be known. Besides, real time computing isn't needed as all perceptions of "time" is also a function of the brain. So, you could take the virtual brain, stop processing it for a few hours and then resume and the brain wouldn't know the difference, unless you make it aware of it.

On the next tier, a small group of people you'd need to do all for the lower tiers, then emulate the world they inhabit and then adapt their avatars. Think Second Life or World of Warcraft with higher fidelity.

And for the highest tier you emulate the universe with individuals and solar systems and all that. As our law's of physics show, everything can be quantifiable, thus you can run them on a Turing based computer.

A similar thought experiment was made by Plato with his Allegory of the cave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave). You might also want to read up on AI's.

Colour-Scientist:

I don't know why people are allowed get away with saying this kind of shit. I wonder what the reaction would be like if I went around telling people that I think white people are smarter than black people.

I refuse to believe that we have to believe every race is on an equal footing, i believe they are all pre-disposed to be better at certain fields, not saying blacks are less intelligent per say just saying that the stats show us the average, average here as well, not every one, the averages show that asians are the smartest race, and that black people are at the other end of the spectrum, jus' saying.

That modern music (especially pop and rap) are still considered "good".

That the Rolling Stones said that Drake was one of the best rappers ever.

That it's not butter.

I refuse to believe there is such a thing as 5am or pants. Everything else I'm cool with.

Grey Carter:
Despite being an atheist, I've never bought into the idea that evolution was entirely responsible for the human body. I don't have any theories on the matter, but it just seems a bit too complex to be the result of random mutations.

The key thing to evolution is that though there are semi-random mutations, they don't cause evolution. Natural selection does. It's hard to explain it all here, and I don't know if you want an essay long answer so:

The environment specifies what is the "fittest" creature. Not all the creatures are fittest, they would normally die. When the environment changes, these non-fit creatures can be fit for the new environment. All the previous fit creatures die, and this strain of the creature carries on. Same thing can happen if a non-fit creature finds a new environment for which it is fit.

Gross oversimplification, but nothing in evolution is random.

lacktheknack:

Ledan:
I'm also a bit iffy about some high level physics stuff. That it's impossible to go faster than light and that you can slow down time (relatively). Mostly because we've said that a lot of things are impossible that we are doing today, and time is a human concept.

Here's an example of why even approaching the speed of light is incredibly risky and implausible.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

Risky? yes. But not impossible, and that's my point. People cite light-speed as an impenetrable barrier that cannot be penetrated. That no object can ever go faster than the speed of light. And I still think that's bull. Speed is just a force, and I don't think the universe has a cap on it.

OT:
Aliens don't need to be carbon-based lifeforms or need water. These can be replaced with other elements or a completely different type of chemistry to form life.
Earth doesn't have most of the iron in the universe.

Ledan:

lacktheknack:

Ledan:
I'm also a bit iffy about some high level physics stuff. That it's impossible to go faster than light and that you can slow down time (relatively). Mostly because we've said that a lot of things are impossible that we are doing today, and time is a human concept.

Here's an example of why even approaching the speed of light is incredibly risky and implausible.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

Risky? yes. But not impossible, and that's my point. People cite light-speed as an impenetrable barrier that cannot be penetrated. That no object can ever go faster than the speed of light. And I still think that's bull. Speed is just a force, and I don't think the universe has a cap on it.

OT:
Aliens don't need to be carbon-based lifeforms or need water. These can be replaced with other elements or a completely different type of chemistry to form life.
Earth doesn't have most of the iron in the universe.

The universe does have a cap on speed, and the reasons are difficult to explain unless you understand special relativity. Since you clearly do not, I advise you go away and try to understand it before trying to make erroneous claims about the nature of the universe.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 15 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked